2

forth in Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of that same Convention.
Likewise, the Commission asked the Court to find that the State breached Articles
1,6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture
(hereinafter “the Inter-American Convention against Torture”) to the detriment of the
Gómez Paquiyauri brothers. Finally, the Commission asked the Court to order the
State to make a number of pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations, as well as to
pay the costs generated by processing of the case under domestic venue and before
the Inter-American System.
3.
According to the Commission, on the morning of June 21, 1991, in the midst
of two police operations, the brothers Emilio Moisés and Rafael Samuel Gómez
Paquiyauri, respectively 14 and 17 years old, were detained by agents of the National
Police and placed in the trunk of a police patrol car. They were allegedly executed on
the route followed by the policemen after their detention. The Commission stated
that both their bodies entered the morgue approximately one hour after they were
captured. The Commission pointed out that the Peruvian courts investigated the
facts and established the individual liability of the direct perpetrators. The InterAmerican Commission stated that the alleged mastermind was identified, but was at
large and had not been tried or punished. Likewise, the Commission pointed out that
the Peruvian courts ordered civil reparations to be paid by the direct perpetrators,
but at the time the application was filed said reparations had not been paid to the
next of kin of the alleged victims.
II
COMPETENCE
4.
The Court is competent to hear the instant case, pursuant to Articles 62 and
63(1) of the American Convention, as Peru has been a State Party to the convention
since July 28, 1978, and it accepted the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Court on
January 21, 1981. The State also ratified the Inter-American Convention against
Torture on March 28, 1991.
III
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION
5.
Case No. 11.016 was opened by the Inter-American Commission on June 12,
1992, in response to a complaint filed by the Centro de Estudios y Acción para la Paz
(hereinafter “CEAPAZ” or “the petitioners”) on July 2, 1991.
6.
On May 1, 2000 the Commission sent a letter to the parties, offering its
services to help attain a friendly settlement, pursuant to "Article 48(1)(f) of the
Convention and Article 45(1) and 45(2) of its Rules of Procedure".
7.
On May 5, 2001, during its 110th Regular Session, the Commission adopted
Report No. 44/01 on admissibility of the case.
8.
On March 21, 2001 the Commission reiterated to the parties its willingness to
contribute to a friendly settlement. On April 23, 2001 the State answered that “it
d[id] not wish to submit[,] at the moment, to the friendly settlement procedure.” On
April 9, 2001 the petitioners stated that “they were willing to begin a friendly
settlement process.”
9.

On October 11, 2001, during its 113th Regular Session, the Commission

Select target paragraph3